A Contest of Wills

Sure it's legal, but is it right?

As an attorney, I sometimes get calls from friends and acquaintances, asking for my legal opinion on personal or business matters. Usually, the questions are fairly simple, and lend themselves to a quick response. So when my friend, "Marcia," called me with questions about her mother, I was happy to render advice.

Marcia's mother, at the time of the first call, was a widow aged 72, who was making plans to remarry. Marcia and her family were ecstatic about the plans; her mother's fiancé was, in fact, the widowed father of Marcia's best friend, "Jill." Marcia and Jill grew up as neighbors and were as close as sisters; they were delighted to soon become actual step-sisters.

Marcia's mother, Sarah, had been widowed for several years, and was essentially subsisting on her Social Security income, although she also had some interest income and had no difficulty making ends meet. Jill's father, Sam, on the other hand, had been a highly successful businessman, and in retirement, was comfortably living off of the proceeds of his large investment portfolio. Sarah made it clear, however, that she was not marrying Sam for personal gain, but rather companionship.

As this was to be a second marriage for two elderly grandparents, a simple wedding was planned in the local synagogue, attended only by the children and grandchildren. I received the first call from Marcia two weeks before the wedding. She was furious and could barely get the facts out.

Unless she signed the pre-nup, the wedding was off.

"My mother just returned from an impromptu meeting with Sam and his lawyer, holding a signed pre-nuptial agreement in her hands! She had no idea what the papers said, but was informed that unless she signed it, the wedding was off! So she went ahead and signed it. Now what should we do?"

I knew that Sarah was a European immigrant and not fully literate in English. So I understood why she was unable to read the document. But I was still puzzled.

"Marcia, wasn't your mother's own lawyer present when she signed it?"

"No! What lawyer? She has no lawyer, and had no chance to find one. I didn't know anything about this pre-nup myself until she came home with the papers. Is it legal?"

"Well, if you mean is it binding on her, the simple answer is no. Since she wasn't represented by her own lawyer, it's not a valid agreement. And besides that, there may be issues of duress, especially considering her illiteracy. But what does the pre-nup actually say?"

Marcia read the short document to me over the phone. Essentially, her mother had agreed to waive her "Right of Election" should Sam pre-decease her. In the State of New York, a widow can elect to inherit one-third of the estate of her deceased husband.

Marcia became even more agitated. "So he's planning to write her out of his will?"

I sighed aloud, imagining how easily this long and amicable relationship between the two families could be destroyed. "Sam might just have been following the instructions of his attorney. But let's talk about the big picture first, before we consider your mom's legal rights."

Sam was about 80 years old and had been treated for lymphoma a few years earlier, though it had been in remission. "Your mom is eight years younger than Sam, and in good health," I said to Marcia. "The odds are that she'll outlive him. If your mom were to inherit a third of his estate, you know she wouldn't be spending it on cruises or luxury items. That's not the type of person she is. It would end up in her estate, and you and your brother would inherit it, rather than Jill and her sisters. Is that really the right outcome? Do you think your family should inherit part of the estate, instead of Jill and her sisters? How would you feel if the situation was reversed?"

Marcia remained quiet for a few moments. Then I heard a long sigh. "I see what you mean. But he did it in such an underhanded way! Why'd he have to be so sneaky about it?"

"He shouldn't have been; I understand why you're upset. But the question now is how are YOU going to behave?"

"Are you saying I shouldn't do anything?"

"I wouldn't tell you what to do, Marcia, but if you're asking about your legal options, you – or should I say your mother – has several to choose from. Your mother could hire a lawyer, and renegotiate the pre-nup before the marriage takes place. Or she could do nothing now, go ahead with the marriage, and if your mother does outlive Sam, she could then contest the will, and argue in court that the pre-nup is not binding. Or she could just accept the terms of the pre-nup and the will. What do you think your mother will want to do?"

"I'll ask her, but I suspect she'll do nothing. She just wants his companionship."

Three Years Later

As it turned out, Marcia's mother did choose to leave the pre-nuptial agreement undisturbed, and the marriage proceeded as planned. Three years later, Sam was diagnosed with a recurrence of his cancer, and he passed away several months afterward. It was during Shiva that Marcia called me early one morning for more advice.

"You're not going to believe this! Jill arrived with another legal document for my mother to sign. She must have stopped off at the lawyer's office on her way here! The document states that my mother agrees not to contest the will. How could she do this – right in the middle of Shiva?!"

Oh dear, I thought. Here we go again. "Marcia, your mother thought this through almost four years ago, before she married Sam. Has she changed her mind? I would guess that the attorney handling Sam’s will is probably working on getting it through probate, and wants to get the estate settled as soon as possible. Is it a good idea to bring it up during Shiva? Not really. But Jill is probably just following the lawyer's instructions, just as her father did with the pre-nup."

"Why didn't she just talk to me about it first?"

"I don't know. Is it possible she's embarrassed about the whole situation, and feels as awkward about it as you do? And she is surely distraught that her beloved father has just died. How would you feel in her place?"

"So what are you saying – that my mother should sign the document?"

You and Jill will become adversaries in court, and your lifelong friendship will undoubtedly be destroyed.

"Marcia, I wouldn't presume to tell your mother what to do. She can decide to contest the will, given that she doesn’t know its contents. Your mother may well prevail in court, and could end up with a third of Sam's estate. But if she does choose that option, you and Jill will become adversaries in court, and your lifelong friendship will undoubtedly be destroyed. So what do you think your mother should do, Marcia?"

There was such a long pause that I thought Marcia had hung up. "Marcia, are you still there?"

"Yes, I'm here, and I'm sure that some people will think I'm not 'all here.' But I'm going to tell my mother to sign that document. If my mother was younger, and I believed she would make use of that money, I might act differently. But Jill is my best friend, and I do love her like a sister. I don't want to feel like I'm taking what really belongs to her and her family."

In the end, Marcia did take the high road, and Sam's will went through probate uneventfully, with his three children inheriting the bulk of his estate. His will did create a trust fund for Marcia's mother, from which her rental expenses and utilities were to be paid as long as she lives. Sarah also applied for, and received, an increase to her Social Security benefits as Sam's widow. Sarah is perfectly content with this outcome, and her only sorrow is that she has lost her second husband, whose company she cherished.

But more importantly, Marcia and Jill -- and their families -- remain close friends. In fact, they have become closer than ever. Of course, Marcia first had to work on overcoming her anger about Jill's behavior regarding her father's estate. She managed that by doing what everyone is supposed to do when confronted with problematic behavior by another: give the other person the benefit of the doubt, and assume that there is an acceptable explanation for his behavior within the particular circumstances. In other words, treat the other person the same way you'd want to be treated yourself.

What this episode proved to me once again was that in a contest between friendship and money, and between taking the legal advantage and doing the right thing, choosing friendship and ethical behavior pays the greatest dividends.

Related Articles:

About the Author

Iris Kruler Rothman, who was born and reared in Brooklyn, New York, attained her bachelor’s degree at Brooklyn College, from which she graduated Summa Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa. She received her Juris Doctor degree from Brooklyn Law School, graduating second in her class, Summa Cum Laude. She spent the first 20 years of her legal career working for the Internal Revenue Service’s Office of Chief Counsel, and the last ten years as an Administrative Law Judge for the Social Security Administration. She is now retired, lives in Far Rockaway, New York with her husband, Sholom Dov, has three married children, and three grandchildren.

Visitor Comments: 9

this article really demonstrated a person prioritizing. it should be a lesson to others

(8)
SusanE,
April 22, 2010 12:43 AM

Wife should be Provided for but Not Inherit.

Older woman and older rich man marry. They should decide what income they need to live on and the remainder should have been decided by him years ago where he wants it to be placed. Whether it is destined to go to his children or for his charities or wherever he wants to have it invested after his death.... The new wife has no strings on that which is his. Anything they acquire after marriage together, should be hers at his death. And if he had money or resources, she should be provided for after his death.------------------ One thing is for certain, if you want your children to have something of yours, whether it's your fathers pocket watch or $500,000. in cash, get ownership to that person while you are alive. That is the only sure way it will be done. Wills are contested quite often and are about as much value as the paper they are written on, as you can see from the story. ------------------------ The man in the story was right to ask for the pre-nupt. The woman was right in signing it. She should have had an attorney though to be sure she was provided for after Sam had died. And if some of Sams money was eventually inherited by Sarahs' daughter it is from her mothers rightful amount.. ------------------------ Jill seems a very selfish person who sees the money rather that her fathers needs being met.

The above coments totally miss the beauty of the story. Our real "work" in this world is to do exactly what Marcia did; not to react instiinctively, but to always try and go in the ways of "sholom" - peace. To act benevolently to someone who is being nice to you, is not difficult, the goal is to go beyond yourself and to ignore insult and still act like a "mench". That is being G-d like. In our holy books it is said that a person who is insulted and does not respond in kind is like the "Sun in its might" - his spiritual level in the next world is on the level of the "Tzaddikim" - the righteous that we read about whose attainments seem unreachable. In fact, concerning the last remark in the second comment above, the Rambam writes that he worked extemely hard to attain humility to the extent that once on a boat ride someone did just that to him and the Rambam was joyous in the fact that he felt only pity for the human being who could behave in such an animalistic fashion.

(5)
Feigele,
April 18, 2010 3:54 PM

Sunami Effect

Lack of Communication can create Sunami effect as it almost happened in this case. I do believe that this lawyer did well by suggesting and not advising that a person should always put themselves in the other person’s shoes. I also believe that when two people bind their lives together at this age, the money belongs to the children of the deceased. I assume that both parties enjoyed the money while living together, no matter who had the most, unless they married for the money. The surviving spouse should be thankful that the estate did provide for her expenses. It is true that it was poorly handled but maybe it is a human instinct reaction and friendship should prevail. Anybody would have react the same way.

(4)
Maryanne,
April 18, 2010 3:24 PM

Experience With Wills

I would like to have known more about this situation. Did the children explain a preneptual allowing the father to make up his own mind or was he forced to go through with it? I have seen greedy family members force relatives to sign everything over to them and/or their children. This does absolutely nothing to help the family get along and rather divides it. People should make preneptual or will on their own with no interference from family members.

(3)
Ira,
April 18, 2010 3:05 PM

Friendship VS money?

Conclusion...Friendship is forever, But BETTER friendship can be bought by money...

(2)
ruth housman,
April 18, 2010 1:44 PM

whose WILL?

I guess I don't feel your advice was the wisdom of Solomon and I truly don't believe that it's about money, not really, because what lies beneath such a story is not right. Namely, a woman who is illiterate marries a man who never discusses with her what he is doing, and who presents her with something he should know could pose a problem that is about love itself. Now why would a man do this? Couldn't he at least have discussed this with "his" woman?
I think this is a story that is not truly a good story, and I think doing something underhanded in this way, is wrong. I also believe that his children should have recognized this, and have tried hard to discuss this, and make it equal. But this notion of splitting two friends and of advising in a way, that is actually not impartial, and I think, exposing the values of the lawyer and perhaps the lawyer's own "story", well I think there's something wrong in this.
It all bothers me.
Friendship is beautiful, but a friend, namely Jill, should have behaved differently, and she too, is the other half of the friendship. No, this is not for me what Solomon would have said.

(1)
Alan S.,
April 18, 2010 10:36 AM

Solomon-like commentary indeed. The lesson learned is beautiful and everlasting. However, not to make a soap opera out of the beautiful moral issue learned, but a few things trouble me. Could Sarah, at her age but living in modern times be so illiterate that she never heard about pre-nups? Or, at the very least, not realize that she should have a lawyer represent her interests? By the same token, shouldn't Sam at the very least have told her that he wanted a pre-nup, and sent her home to think about and discuss it with her family, prior to having her meet him at his lawyers office? And shouldn't Sam, or at the very least, Sam's lawyer, knowing her "illiteracy", insist that she have an attorney present? Finally, I think another article should be written by Marcia, to discuss just what she did to overcome her anger with Jill, considering Jill's poor behavior. Because I too would like to take one of the magic pills that Marcia must have taken to help me cope and learn the next time a supposed best friend screws me - whether knowlingly or unwittingly, whether for the right or wrong reasons. Judge Judy said it best, don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining.

I just got married and have an important question: Can we eat rice on Passover? My wife grew up eating it, and I did not. Is this just a matter of family tradition?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah instructs a Jew not to eat (or even possess) chametz all seven days of Passover (Exodus 13:3). "Chametz" is defined as any of the five grains (wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rye) that came into contact with water for more than 18 minutes. Chametz is a serious Torah prohibition, and for that reason we take extra protective measures on Passover to prevent any mistakes.

Hence the category of food called "kitniyot" (sometimes referred to generically as "legumes"). This includes rice, corn, soy beans, string beans, peas, lentils, peanuts, mustard, sesame seeds and poppy seeds. Even though kitniyot cannot technically become chametz, Ashkenazi Jews do not eat them on Passover. Why?

Products of kitniyot often appear like chametz products. For example, it can be hard to distinguish between rice flour (kitniyot) and wheat flour (chametz). Also, chametz grains may become inadvertently mixed together with kitniyot. Therefore, to prevent confusion, all kitniyot were prohibited.

In Jewish law, there is one important distinction between chametz and kitniyot. During Passover, it is forbidden to even have chametz in one's possession (hence the custom of "selling chametz"). Whereas it is permitted to own kitniyot during Passover and even to use it - not for eating - but for things like baby powder which contains cornstarch. Similarly, someone who is sick is allowed to take medicine containing kitniyot.

What about derivatives of kitniyot - e.g. corn oil, peanut oil, etc? This is a difference of opinion. Many will use kitniyot-based oils on Passover, while others are strict and only use olive or walnut oil.

Finally, there is one product called "quinoa" (pronounced "ken-wah" or "kin-o-ah") that is permitted on Passover even for Ashkenazim. Although it resembles a grain, it is technically a grass, and was never included in the prohibition against kitniyot. It is prepared like rice and has a very high protein content. (It's excellent in "cholent" stew!) In the United States and elsewhere, mainstream kosher supervision agencies certify it "Kosher for Passover" -- look for the label.

Interestingly, the Sefardi Jewish community does not have a prohibition against kitniyot. This creates the strange situation, for example, where one family could be eating rice on Passover - when their neighbors will not. So am I going to guess here that you are Ashkenazi and your wife is Sefardi. Am I right?

Yahrtzeit of Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (1194-1270), known as Nachmanides, and by the acronym of his name, Ramban. Born in Spain, he was a physician by trade, but was best-known for authoring brilliant commentaries on the Bible, Talmud, and philosophy. In 1263, King James of Spain authorized a disputation (religious debate) between Nachmanides and a Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani. Nachmanides reluctantly agreed to take part, only after being assured by the king that he would have full freedom of expression. Nachmanides won the debate, which earned the king's respect and a prize of 300 gold coins. But this incensed the Church: Nachmanides was charged with blasphemy and he was forced to flee Spain. So at age 72, Nachmanides moved to Jerusalem. He was struck by the desolation in the Holy City -- there were so few Jews that he could not even find a minyan to pray. Nachmanides immediately set about rebuilding the Jewish community. The Ramban Synagogue stands today in Jerusalem's Old City, a living testimony to his efforts.

It's easy to be intimidated by mean people. See through their mask. Underneath is an insecure and unhappy person. They are alienated from others because they are alienated from themselves.

Have compassion for them. Not pity, not condemning, not fear, but compassion. Feel for their suffering. Identify with their core humanity. You might be able to influence them for the good. You might not. Either way your compassion frees you from their destructiveness. And if you would like to help them change, compassion gives you a chance to succeed.

It is the nature of a person to be influenced by his fellows and comrades (Rambam, Hil. De'os 6:1).

We can never escape the influence of our environment. Our life-style impacts upon us and, as if by osmosis, penetrates our skin and becomes part of us.

Our environment today is thoroughly computerized. Computer intelligence is no longer a science-fiction fantasy, but an everyday occurrence. Some computers can even carry out complete interviews. The computer asks questions, receives answers, interprets these answers, and uses its newly acquired information to ask new questions.

Still, while computers may be able to think, they cannot feel. The uniqueness of human beings is therefore no longer in their intellect, but in their emotions.

We must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to become human computers that are devoid of feelings. Our culture is in danger of losing this essential aspect of humanity, remaining only with intellect. Because we communicate so much with unfeeling computers, we are in danger of becoming disconnected from our own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of others.

As we check in at our jobs, and the computer on our desk greets us with, "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Today is Wednesday, and here is the agenda for today," let us remember that this machine may indeed be brilliant, but it cannot laugh or cry. It cannot be happy if we succeed, or sad if we fail.

Today I shall...

try to remain a human being in every way - by keeping in touch with my own feelings and being sensitive to the feelings of others.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...